Purpose
This memo enforces the scientific recursion of your project.
At this stage, technical exploration and template workflows are no longer sufficient.
You are required to re-enter the scientific literature and use it actively to justify, refine, or revise your project design. Course examples — including the instructor’s project logic — must be treated as contextual references, not as directions to follow. They may inform your reasoning, but they must not constrain or replace your own argumentation.
Your task is to continue and sharpen your existing project exposé: - align methods with your conceptual intent, - justify design decisions with literature and reasoning, - and explicitly state where your approach converges with or diverges from established designs.
The memo may exceed up to 3 pages if required for a coherent argument. In addition, include a short appendix that documents: - remaining technical gaps, - unresolved conceptual questions, - and -most important- constraints that currently limit your design.
These gaps are not a deficit. Making them explicit is part of scientific control over the project.
Format & Scope
- Length: up to ≈ 2000 words.
(only if argumentatively necessary no listings and placeholders…). - Style: scientific, technical, precise, and argumentative — no narrative padding.
- Figures: optional, only if they support an argument.
- References: mandatory
(inline citations + reference list).
Required Structure
1. Original Design Intent (≈ 1 paragraph)
State clearly:
- the conceptual objective of your rainfall network design,
- the dominant design logic
(physiographic, information-gain, hydrological), - the key assumptions that initially guided your project.
Focus strictly on intent and rationale, not on methods or tools.
2. What Changed During the Workflow (≈ 2–3 paragraphs)
Document decisions, not impressions:
- which workflow components were adapted, simplified, or removed,
- which assumptions were confirmed, revised, or abandoned,
- where the course workflow or examples influenced your thinking —
and where you deliberately departed from them.
3. Scientific Justification (≈ 2-5 paragraphs)
This is the core section. You are required to re-enter the literature seriously and use it to argue your design.
- Introduce new or re-read sources that became relevant because of your results.
- Explain how specific references:
- support your current design,
- contradict earlier assumptions,
- or point to alternative, equally valid approaches.
You must explicitly link papers to decisions, e.g.:
- choice of stratification logic,
- use (or non-use) of landforms or catchments,
- rejection of optimisation strategies,
- prioritisation of certain processes over others.
4. Scope, Limits, and Open Questions (≈ 2-3 paragraphs)
State plainly:
- which processes your design captures robustly,
- which are represented only indirectly,
- which remain unresolved or unaddressed.
Lack of clarity here indicates missing literature or weak reasoning.
Clarity about limits indicates scientific control.
Appendix
Add a short appendix, listing:
- remaining technical gaps,
- unresolved conceptual questions,
- constraints (data, scale, feasibility) that currently limit your design.
Do not hide these gaps in the main text.
Making them explicit is part of the task.
Submission
- File name:
NAME_Module5_ScientificRecursion.pdf - Upload: ILIAS folder
project_revisited.